Filed 6/22/21 P. v. Adams CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALBERT ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F081025

(Super. Ct. No. DF014662A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, 

Judge.

Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Erin 

Doering, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, the voters adopted Proposition 64, which (with certain limitations)

legalized possession of “not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis” by persons 21 years of 

age or older. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(1);1 People v. Perry (2019) 32 

Cal.App.5th 885, 888 (Perry).)

In 2019, appellant Albert Adams was charged with possession of marijuana while 

incarcerated in prison in violation of Penal Code section 4573.6. He pleaded no contest 

to an amended charge of possession of any drug or alcohol in prison in violation of Penal 

Code section 4573.8. As part of the plea, the parties agreed appellant could appeal the 

question of whether possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison is 

unlawful. In 2020, appellant was sentenced to 32 months in prison. 

California Courts of Appeal are split on whether possession of less than 28.5 

grams of marijuana in prison is unlawful. (Compare Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 885

[Proposition 64 did not decriminalize possession of cannabis in prison] with People v. 

Raybon (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 111 (Raybon) [Proposition 64 decriminalized possession 

of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison], review granted Aug. 21, 2019, 

S256978.)2 Appellant contends we should follow Raybon and reverse his judgment. In 

the alternative, he argues his judgment should be conditionally reversed and the matter 

remanded to afford the People an opportunity to show he possessed more than 28.5 grams 

of marijuana in prison. Appellant’s arguments are without merit. We affirm.

1 All future statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise 

noted.

2

In granting review of Raybon, the Supreme Court stated it would decide the 

following issue: “Did Proposition 64 [the ‘Adult Use of Marijuana Act’] decriminalize 

the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or older who 

are in state prison as well as those not in prison?” 
3.

DISCUSSION

Appellant relies on Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at page 113, review granted, 

for the proposition that Proposition 64 modified Penal Code section 4573.6 such that 

possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison is no longer criminal. The 

People contend we should instead accept the reasoning of Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at 

page 887, for the proposition that Penal Code section 4573.6 was unaffected by 

Proposition 64. We find Perry more persuasive.

Penal Code section 4573.6 provides in relevant part: “Any person who knowingly 

has in his or her possession in any state prison ... any controlled substances, the 

possession of which is prohibited by Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of 

the Health and Safety Code, ... without being authorized to so possess the same by the 

rules of the Department of Corrections, rules of the prison ... or by the specific 

authorization of the warden ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant 

to subdivision (h) of [Penal Code] [s]ection 1170 for two, three, or four years.” (Pen. 

Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a).)

As Perry and Raybon both note, Proposition 64 added section 11362.1, which 

“affirmatively legalized” possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana by a person age 

21 or older, except in certain circumstances. (Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 889–

890; accord, Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 114, review granted.) That 

decriminalization was designed to also apply to those already serving sentences for 

offenses decriminalized by Proposition 64. To that end, Proposition 64 added section 

11361.8, which created a mechanism for those serving a sentence to petition for recall or 

dismissal of the sentence.

As we have noted, Proposition 64 did not decriminalize marijuana use and 

possession in all circumstances. Relevant here, Proposition 64 added section 11362.45,

which limits the application of section 11362.1 in prisons: “Section 11362.1 does not 

amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt: [¶] ... [¶] ... [l]aws pertaining to smoking or 
4.

ingesting cannabis or cannabis products on the grounds of, or within, any facility or 

institution under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ....” 

(§ 11362.45, subd. (d).) After much discussion, the Perry court found that, “[w]hile 

section 11362.45, subdivision (d), does not expressly refer to ‘possession,’ its application 

to possession is implied by its broad wording—‘[l]aws pertaining to smoking or 

ingesting cannabis.’ ” (Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 891; see id. at pp. 894–895 [to 

the extent Proposition 64 created any ambiguity regarding possession of marijuana in 

prison, the fact that the official voter guide made no mention of the act impacting the 

prohibition on possession of marijuana in prison suggests the electorate did not intend to 

decriminalize it].) On that basis, it concluded a defendant convicted of an offense 

pursuant to Penal Code section 4573.6, subdivision (a), for possession of marijuana in 

prison is not entitled to relief pursuant to section 11361.8. (Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 

at pp. 896–897.)

The Raybon court rejected the reasoning of Perry, instead concluding the plain 

language of section 11362.45, subdivision (d), unambiguously only excluded from 

decriminalization “ ‘smoking[,] ingesting[,]’ ” and otherwise consuming marijuana in 

prison. (Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 122, review granted.) It explained the laws

pertaining to smoking or ingesting cannabis, the language of section 11362.45, 

subdivision (d), is designed to “describe the vast array of means of consumption” or use

of cannabis. (Raybon, at p. 122, italics added.) It does not suggest the “distinct activity”

of possessing marijuana remains a criminal activity in a prison. (Id. at p. 121.) Raybon

reasoned if the electors intended to prevent possession of cannabis in prison it would 

have expressly used the word “possession,” as was done elsewhere in Proposition 64. 

(Raybon, at pp. 121–122, citing § 11362.3, subd. (a)(5).) The Raybon court also 

considered and rejected the Attorney General’s argument that its reading of the statute 

would amount to an absurdity. (Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at pp. 123–124, review 

granted.) It explained that allowing prisons to punish possession of marijuana by 
5.

prisoners through prison rule violations rather than criminally is not absurd. (Ibid.) The

Raybon court therefore concluded that, while smoking, ingesting, or otherwise 

consuming marijuana in prison remained illegal, possession of marijuana in prison was 

decriminalized by Proposition 64.

Along with our colleagues in the Fourth and Sixth District Courts of Appeal, we 

find Perry the more persuasive opinion and conclude Proposition 64 did not 

decriminalize possession of marijuana in prison. (People v. Herrera (2020) 52 

Cal.App.5th 982, 994–995; People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1, 6–15.) On that 

basis, we conclude appellant was properly convicted, and his judgment should not be 

reversed.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.